I concluded last week with the dismantling one of the more bizarre stories I’ve seen spun by the merry band of anti-vaccine propagandists over at Age of Autism. As you might recall, Mark “Not a Doctor, Not a Scientist” Blaxill had teamed with Dan “Where are the Autistic Amish?” Olmsted (or, as I call them, B&O) to produce what was at that time a five part “epic” of pseudoscientifically and enthusiastically confusing correlation with causation. I’m referring to what they called “The Age of Polio,” a title that made me wonder if B&O are terminally without imagination in that they seem to like to call everything the “Age of”…whatever. First we had “the age of autism”; now we have “the age of polio.” What’s next? No, wait. Don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

In any case, the “Age of Polio” is a multipart “expose” of what B&O claim is the real story behind polio, and it’s a doozy. According to B&O, polio isn’t caused by the polio virus. Well, not exactly. Their claim is that polio epidemics came about not because of the virus but because somehow the virus interacted with pesticides, first lead arsenate compounds first introduced in the Boston area in 1893 and then, when the use of lead arsenate compounds was on the wane in the 1940s, DDT, which was introduced in the late 1940s. As I pointed out before, it’s truly amazing how two pesticides with such different chemical compounds and mechanisms of action could somehow both interact with the same virus to cause the same neurotoxicity in the spinal cord leading to paralysis, but plausibility was never anything that bothered anti-vaccine activists much. Certainly it didn’t bother B&O at all, because they then proceeded to cherry pick data to make it look as though there were a perfect correlation between these pesticides and polio epidemics. An even more egregious offense against epidemiology, math, and science, they tried to demonstrate a “breakpoint” around 1893 when they thought that the number of polio outbreaks made an abrupt increase, apparently based purely on visual cues, rather than doing any sort of unbiased statistical analysis to identify whether (1) there actually was a break point in the curve and (2) when it was. By “eyeballing it” alone, one could just as easily have chosen a point 10 or 20 years earlier.

Be that as it may, towards the end, B&O pointed out that polio outbreaks are still a problem in many parts of the world and left us with a teaser, in which they promised to explain how, given that lead arsenate compounds and DDT have phased out, there could still be polio outbreaks if their “theory” (and I do use the term incredibly loosely) were true. I facetiously speculated that they’d somehow figure out a way to bring mercury into the picture. Sadly, I was mistaken. Even more sadly, the real answer was more brain meltingly idiotic than anything I could possibly have thought of. You’ll see what I mean in am minute. In the meantime, I will add the two links for the newest parts of B&O’s epic of pseudoscience, so that you can see all seven parts in their stupid glory:

So let’s pick right back up with part 6. I’ll cut to the chase. The answer to the reason why there are still polio outbreaks despite the fact that lead arsenate pesticides were phased out decades ago is…arsenic. No, really. I kid you not. After noting that there are two areas where polio has resisted elimination, namely South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India), and Africa (basically, Nigeria), B&O go on to speculate wildly:

If one considers the toxin idea, however, another explanation jumps out, especially in South Asia. Erase national borders for a moment. While outbreaks are small and have waxed and waned over the past decade, the primary sites have been directly south of the Himalayan range in a smiley-face arc that runs west from Nepal and Bangladesh, through the Northern India districts of West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This also happens to be the area with the worst mass poisoning from arsenic in human history. This is not ancient history – it didn’t even begin until the 1980s. It is a story of the single-minded war against microbes gone badly wrong. What happened is beautifully outlined in an American Scientist article, “No one checked: Natural Arsenic in Wells.”[ii]

The mind boggles. In particular, there’s a huge inconsistency in B&O’s story. In fact, it’s a hole big enough to drive an arsenic-laden freighter through. Remember back in part 2 of their saga, when B&O tried to claim that it was the rise in the use of lead arsenate-based pesticides that led to an interaction between the lead arsenate compounds and the polio virus, making the virus more virulent and paralytic? Basically, that’s the whole reason they picked 1893-1894 as their break point after which the number of polio outbreaks supposedly skyrocketed. They even pointed out that Paris Green and London Purple, the two state-of-the-art arsenic compounds that were potent against most pests and used as pesticides at the time, didn’t work at all against the Gypsy moths that were threatening agriculture in late 19th century New England. In fact, according to B&O, the gypsy moth invasion was the impetus that lead to experimenting with lead arsenate compounds to make them deadlier to the moths.

So here’s the inconsistency. B&O point out that arsenic compounds were widely used as pesticides before 1893 but that it was only in 1893 that lead arsenate was developed and shown to be effective against the gypsy moth. It was only in 1893-94 that lead arsenate compounds began to be widely used as pesticides. It was also in 1893, according to B&O, that the first bigger polio outbreaks were noted in the Boston area, outbreaks that, according to B&O presaged the huge outbreaks to come in the early part of the 20th century. To them, this is evidence that it was lead arsenate compounds combining with the polio virus that lead to outbreaks of paralytic polio. it’s a massive confusion of correlation with causation, but apparently B&O are more than happy to let their story mutate when the facts become “inconvenient.” No more lead arsenate compounds? Well, then, it must have been the DDT! No more DDT? Then it must have been the arsenic contamination of groundwater! But wait! Didn’t they say earlier in the series that there were few outbreaks of polio back when arsenic-based pesticides were widely used, back…oh, you know…before 1893. So, basically, arsenic plus polio doesn’t cause paralytic polio outbreaks, but lead arsenate plus polio does; that is, except when it’s convenient to say that arsenic plus polio can cause outbreaks.

Of course, consistency never was one of B&O’s strong points. Purity of message is, and they never let inconsistencies, major or minor, get in the way of their purity of message. In fact, even while blaming arsenic for recent polio outbreaks they have to try to explain away inconvenient facts, such as why there are have been no recent polio outbreaks in Bangladesh, an area that apparently has had some of the worse arsenic contamination of its drinking water:

Why, given the arsenic disaster in Bangladesh, are there no recent polio cases there? It appears the virus has been wiped out. “Concerted efforts to eradicate polio in Bangladesh, resulted in the country being declared polio free in August 2000.”[xii]

B&O just undermined their entire implication that the polio vaccine isn’t as great as scientists believe. After all, B&O just admitted that vaccination campaigns eradicated polio in Bangladesh, and that’s why, despite the arsenic contamination problem, there hasn’t been any polio there. Not that this stops B&O from declaring:

Polio outbreaks, we believe, are persisting today for the same reason they arose. South Asia is simply a place where toxic interactions are triggering outbreaks that highlight the presence of the virus, like Luminol bringing out hidden blood splatters at a crime scene.

That would seem to spell trouble for programs guided by the belief that going after polio outbreaks will eradicate the virus – despite the vast resources currently being thrown at the effort.

Not surprisingly, a far more likely (and plausible) explanation besides a fantastical alleged interaction between arsenic and the polio virus is one that does not reflect well at all on the anti-vaccine movement. That explanation for the persistence of polio outbreaks in Afghanistan, northern India, Pakistan, and West Africa is the persistence of reservoirs of unvaccinated people. Indeed, I wrote about that very issue a very long time ago, back when this blog was still new, in a post entitled Polio returns, thanks to anti-vaccination zealots. For instance, in Pakistan in 2007 clerics declared polio vaccination an “American plot“:

The parents of 24,000 children in northern Pakistan refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccinations last month, mostly due to rumours that the harmless vaccine was an American plot to sterilise innocent Muslim children.

The disinformation – spread by extremist clerics using mosque loudspeakers and illegal radio stations, and by word of mouth – has caused a sharp jump in polio cases in Pakistan and hit global efforts to eradicate the debilitating disease.

The result was:

Even though only 24,000 children missed the vaccine, the WHO officials said failure to vaccinate in small pockets of the country gave the virus a fresh toehold to spread.

“Muslim leaders in hundreds of northern Nigerian communities such as Batakaye limited or halted door-to-door polio immunization last year. They told millions of faithful in this Muslim-dominated region that the American government had tainted the vaccine with either infertility drugs or HIV, the virus that causes AIDS — statements later proved false by independent laboratory tests.

“Some leaders admitted in interviews late last year that they never believed such a thing. But they remained silent, they said, in order to stop anything associated with the United States. The US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several said, had led them to believe that America wants to control the Islamic world, and the polio vaccination effort gave them an opportunity to resist a US-funded initiative.

It is probably not a coincidence that Nigeria is one of the four countries in which polio remains endemic. Nor is it likely to be a coincidence that northern India is also one of the places where polio remains endemic. Heck, all B&O would need to do to know this is check out the Wikipedia entry on polio eradication, where it is explained:

The epidemic occurred after the number of planned polio vaccination campaigns was reduced in India in 2002. Additionally, as many as 15% of homes were not visited during the vaccination activities which did take place that year.

it was also noted that there seemed to be a higher transmission rate in Bihar district and Uttar Pradesh, and a relatively low (~80% after three doses against type 1) seroconversion response seen from the vaccine.

In all areas where polio remains endemic, medical infrastructure, and problems resulting from it, sometimes with resistance to vaccination mixed in to help depress vaccine uptake, result in vaccination rates too low to achieve herd immunity, leaving a reservoir of unvaccinated people from which the virus can emerge when conditions were right. A not inconsiderable obstacle has also been difficulties in maintaining the potency of the oral polio vaccine, which must be stored at 2Â° to 8Â° C, something that’s not always easy in tropical climates far from large cities.

The last part of the “age of polio” series is where B&O concentrate their most potent stupid into a flaming blast of idiocy that will consume the reader like flame from the Human Torch. However, this flaming stupid does reveal an insight into the mind of an anti-vaccine activist. Basically, they hate and fear the success of vaccination programs, and few vaccination programs in history have been as successful as that against polio. Over the last five decades, polio has been beaten back from a world wide endemic disease to isolated pockets in a few backwater areas in Asia and Africa. There, the polio virus can only hold out because of a combination of factors, including religion-inspired anti-vaccine loons, that prevent the populations there from being vaccinated to levels that allow herd immunity to take hold. Yet, to B&O, pointing this out is “triumphalism” that is hateful to them:

Yet triumphalism is an ongoing legacy of The Age of Polio. Merely invoking the word today can shut down debate over public health, especially concerns over any aspect of vaccination policy.

Not exactly. A better way of looking at it is that anti-vaccinationists like to try to minimize and downplay the power of vaccination to eradicate infectious disease and don’t like it when examples are given that prove their dismissal of the power of vaccines to promote public health to be not based in science, evidence, or reason. That’s why B&O need so desperately to downplay the significance of the virus and add environmental toxins to the mix. Downplay the importance of the virus, and you downplay the importance of the vaccine. Exaggerate the importance of environmental toxins (or make up a correlation out of whole cloth), and you make the vaccine-autism hypothesis suddenly sound somewhat plausible. Add on top of that stories about the risks of the oral poliovirus, such as the Cutter incident, and it’s so much the better for vaccine denialists.

So B&O conclude:

The suffering of polio’s victims is honored by learning all of its lessons, including the danger of environmental toxins and the perils of ignoring their role in modern disease; the risk of focusing all of our energy on vaccinations as magic bullets, and the fundamental ethical obligation to search for the truth without fear or favor. Only then can we work out the real nature of illnesses that confront us here and now, ranging from autism to Parkinson’s to the persistence of poliomyelitis itself. Only then can we begin to prevent such disasters as The Age of Polio.

Except that B&O profoundly dishonor the suffering of polio’s victims by trying to use pseudoscience and the willfully ignorant confusion of correlation with causation to obfuscate and confuse, to blur the true cause of polio and simultaneously to make their vaccine pseudoscience sound superficially plausible. In their “Age of Polio” series, B&O just took a huge, steamy, stinky dump on the suffering of polio’s victims in order to advance their anti-vaccine agenda.

A better way of looking at it is that anti-vaccinationists like to try to minimize and downplay the power of vaccination to eradicate infectious disease and don’t like it when examples are given that prove their dismissal of the power of vaccines to promote public health to be not based in science, evidence, or reason. That’s why B&O need so desperately to downplay the significance of the virus and add environmental toxins to the mix.

If their goal was to discredit the effectiveness of the polio vaccination campaign, they could have said it was solely due to pesticides (something which others have done before them). This would have jibed with the belief of a large portion of their target audience, that autism is caused by “toxins”. Saying that paralytic polio was caused by a combination of toxins and virus, thus suggesting that autism is caused by a combination of toxins and viruses/bacteria/antigens, has a lot more advantages for them:

1) It gives them an excuse for why the very large reduction in total mercury load in pediatric vaccines hasn’t caused a drop in autism rates: at the same time the mercury exposure was being reduced, exposure to some other toxin, from non-vaccines sources, was increasing, like DDT usage increased as lead arsenate usage decreased.

2) It gives them an excuse as to why pink disease and Minamata disease weren’t associated with autism: while they were exposed to a bunch of mercury, mercury (or some other toxin) is only a necessary cause of autism, not a sufficient one.

3) For greater fear-mongering purposes, it gives a rational as to why no vaccine can ever be “green” enough: since autism can be caused by non-vaccine toxins interacting with vaccines, any vaccine could be a causative factor in autism, regardless of what is or isn’t in the vaccine.

4) It presents a theory that can appeal to both those parents who think that toxins are the cause of their children’s autism, and those who think that vaccines like MMR caused the autism.

5) It gives them another reason to dismiss any studies which find no connection between vaccines and autism: that the studies failed to take toxicology into account.

One reason I have heard given by the antivax crowd about why there is so little polio about now is that “There is, it’s just been redefined and called something else”. Absolutely bonkers, I know, but true. When pressed on what it had been redefined as, I got answers suchh as “It’s aseptic meningitis”.

When I pointed out that the main cause of aseptic meningitis in kids actually used to be mumps infection (it complicates about 10% of cases), and that since the introduction of universal mumps vaccine in MMR the problem had virtually disappeared, there was no answer, not even a bad one.

Even more bizarrely, the same people promote the idea that smallpox still is rife, but it too has merely been reclassified as some other disease. What this could possibly be is unclear.

Still, I am somewhat surprised that BO didn’t play the “redefinition/reclassification” card somewhere along the line.

B&O are consistent though. As herr doctor points out, the overlap for arsenic in water and polio is sparse. The same is true of their other heavy metal theory. When mercury was removed from vaccines (as a precaution) the incidence of autism was unaffected. Next theory?

B&O are consistent though. As herr doctor points out, the overlap for arsenic in water and polio is sparse. The same is true of their other heavy metal theory. When mercury was removed from vaccines (as a precaution) the incidence of autism was unaffected. Next theory?

I’m over on the physical science side of things. For some time now there’s been a claim floating around — if only implicitly — that physics “explains everything”, in a crude sense — in other words, if you push the reductionist program enthusiastically enough, all the explanations eventually come down to physics. This gives it a quasi-religious status for many.

And perhaps because of that reason, physics attracts cranks. Lots of cranks. Cranks of every variety. Every week, the mail brings another couple of mass-mailed envelopes containing typewritten screeds with hand-drawn diagrams, in which some retired engineer explains their theory of everything, which has somehow escaped the attention of all those smart people who work on this stuff for a living. The younger cranks tend to go with long, long internet postings. They tend to favor black backgrounds, and have a serious aversion to paragraph breaks. Their fanciful theories are often mixed in with consipiracy theories, such as the laugh-out-loud wacko theory that the HAARP radar in Alaska is a secret weapon for world domination. Tesla is often invoked in reverential tones.

The anti-vax movement reminds me of these people. Our Esteemed Host does a really wonderful public service by calling them out, but when I see things like the idea that polio and smallpox have been rebranded, rather than eliminated, it crosses the line from merely bad science into serious counterfactual crazy.

We’re talking cranks. Cranks are completely immune to rational argument — they’re deeply invested in being unrecognized geniuses, and have long since lost any vestigial capacity for self-criticism. It’s necessary to speak up and make rational arguments against them, so their ideas don’t go unopposed, but one will never make any headway with them.

Pardon me for waxing psychological but we can learn *so much* about Mssrs B&O from this *Meisterwerk*:

Writing reveals psychological, historical, and educational factors about its authors; a clever, self-aware writer might be able to disguise certain characteristics but basically,” You can run but you can’t hide”.

Now I didn’t read the entire *magnum opus* but skipped around and have relied upon the efforts of our esteemed host as even *I* have limits( and there was other woo to persue):

Obviously, we have Dunning-Kruger “unawareness of in-expertise”. As I’ve asked previously how likely is it that anyone can overturn scientific consensus worldwide of a century’s duration? They grandiosely hold themselves beyond this critique,”Science, what does it know? I know better!”
I’ll globally state that neither had much college level work in bio, chem, physio, epi, psych. They probably think that statistics are what the census does.

They seem to take cues from general woo-meisters about toxins permeating our pristine environment and bodily fluids and conspiracy reigns supreme. Illness has little to do with virii and bacteria but more with contamination. In short, they learned their general science @ Woo U. Similarly, like the usual suspects, they brandish the flaming sword of truth** revealing the corruption and greed of the establishment, ushering in a new era of enlightment and peace. F–k, I hear so much of this lately- it must be contagious. ( continued)

Of course they are not using up to date epidemiology, with their statement:

“While outbreaks are small and have waxed and waned over the past decade, the primary sites have been directly south of the Himalayan range in a smiley-face arc that runs west from Nepal and Bangladesh, through the Northern India districts of West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, into Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

There has been only 1 case of polio reported in India in 2011 and it was in West Bengal and after the recent outbreak of 9 cases of polio in China, since identified as the circulating strain in Pakistan (WPV1), India has instituted new border policies. All the roads and railway borders with Pakistan now have health care personal to vaccinate children ages 5 and under coming from Pakistan. Indian health officials want to eradicate polio completely in their country.

China with the 9 cases confirmed this years, directly associated with the Pakistani strain, after being declared polio-free since 1999 has embarked on an enhanced polio vaccination program.

Tracking of each case of newly reported outbreaks of the disease is available on the web at:

Global Polio Eradication Initiative

It seems that B&O and all the posters at AoA are getting truly desperate…which I truly relish. In their feeble attempts to remain relevant and not be thought of as the fringe crank element of science, they are offering up the most preposterous “theories” about the autism “epidemic”.

Their “vaccine-autism link theory” has been totally discredited and they are trying to link “environmental” causes to autism. The IACC (Inter-agency Autism Coordinating Committee) is devoting some of their considerable resources toward “environmental causes”…most of it devoted to the prenatal period of the child’s development which includes parental ages at time of conception, use of drugs before/after conception, high order births, preterm labor, small for gestation age and (my favorite) genetic studies.

No, B&O, Stagliano, Handley and the other yellow journalists at AoA are no longer relevant, they no longer drive the dialogue about autism research and they have no more “theories” except the environment and whatever pseudoscience they can conjure up.

Some of the comments in that series are adorable, for instance a subject of this blog chimes in with:

While you are providing a lot of good and interesting information, you are cementing the falsehood that polio vaccines were effective. This is a frightening thing coming from such aware and intelligent people. I hope you will heed Hilary Butler’s comments as they will lead you to a deeper truth. Suzanne Humphries, MD

This series has been a great supplement to my reading of “The River” right now. Thanks. Where will the article be published?
Maurine (Meleck)

Fascinating. What about a summary version to submit to an epidemiology journal? Beckus

Dr. Bernard Greenberg, former chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association:

This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

Anti-vax is *reductio ad toxinum*: a concept more in need of CPR than PR. But B&O understand their audience and wish to feed upon their vehement hatred of damaging corporations that have wrecked their lives and children’s future while despicable governments have allowed this criminality to persist. Nothing about recent discoveries in genetics here. I wonder why?

Like our web woo-meisters, they have found their niche, imagining a future in this business: Chris hit the nail on the head a few days ago- somebody is trying to wrangle a book deal. Several people @ AoA have written books about autism, B&O, Ms Stagliano,as have their mentors RFK jr, AW, other woo-meisters. Can Jake be far behind? Money and book tours with adoring fans- have you read the comments?- are motivation enough.

B&O remind me of those I survey who proclaim themselves experts in one of more fields wherein they have little or no formal education or training while simultaneously tearing down establishment consensus: they have to, because they don’t really know it. This is a cheat start to finish. Their alternative view’s successful acceptance relies upon their audience’s ignorance. No wonder there is such empathy here.

To steal a phrase**, “the cherry on the corpse” is that this novel presentation will probably earn B&O money and additional street cred in Woo-ville possibly they’ll branch out beyond autism to other topics as they hint here. Sound familiar?

Ah, the Greenberg gambit. How did the good doctor professor of statistics wrap up again?

I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is. Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to push the use of it. I don’t think we should do so in ignorance, nor too complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, saying, “Let’s face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business too quickly; so this time we are going to be more cautious.” By being more cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too slowly. And that’s what I am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are making this mistake possible. The issue must be pursued.

Acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) is the most common clinical presentation of acute poliovirus infection, occurring in 0.1-1% of infected cases. AFP surveillance has been used world-wide to monitor the control and eradication of circulating wild poliovirus. This study aims to review the significance of all enteroviruses, including polioviruses, isolated from patients with AFP in Australia between 1996 and 2004.
METHODS:

We undertook a retrospective review of all notified cases of AFP, aged 0-15 years and resident in Australia at the time of notification. We reviewed all available clinical and virological data for these cases and all records of the Polio Expert Committee, which determined the final classification for all cases.
RESULTS:

There were 335 notified cases that satisfied the case definition for AFP, 162 (48%) of whom had at least one faecal sample tested. Enteroviruses isolated from the faeces of 26 (16%) of the 162 cases were Coxsackie A24, Coxsackie B5, enterovirus 71, enterovirus 75, echovirus 9, echovirus 11 and echovirus 18. In addition, one or more polioviruses were isolated from the faeces of seven patients. Six of seven polioviruses were characterised as Sabin-like, one was not characterised, but all were considered to be incidental isolates. Five of these cases were classified as infant botulism, one case as transverse myelitis and one as a focal mononeuropathy.
CONCLUSION:

With the eradication of circulating wild polioviruses, other enteroviruses are being more commonly identified as the cause of polio-like illnesses. In the polio end game, when there is increased testing for polioviruses, it is important to consider infant botulism as a differential diagnosis in cases presenting with AFP.

PMID:
16737480
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Of course, this is a rather old study. Might I suggest to you that you “google” West Nile Virus…a newly emerging vector borne viral disease and the incidence of acute paralytic paralysis and tick bites paralysis that can cause AFP?

These of course are only part (infectous agents) of the differential diagnoses of AFP and other (non-infectious) causes such as myasthenia gravis and Guillain Barre Syndrome, demyelinating disorders (such as multiple sclerosis and transverse myelitis) lead poisoning in children who chew on paint chips or toys with lead paint, occupational toxic chemical exposures and macro/micro nutritional deficiencies all cause acute flaccid paralysis.

I think Offal needs some education in basic sciences, some clue about differentiating between crank reference cites such as whale.to and reliable reference sites.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals?
The Association for Financial Professionals?
The Australian Federal Police?
Alpha-fetoprotein?
Americans for Prosperity?
The Armed Forces of the Philippines?

I wonder if Jake Crosby is learning more about epidemiology from B&O than from GW? Or if he’s going to use the B&O approach to epidemiology when he presents his first assignments?

In either case, he’ll be laughed out of any reputable public health organization not only because of what he’s written but because of what his masters have written.

BTW, “AFP” is acute flaccid paralysis. It is no more a “renaming” of polio – as the troll would like to believe – as “flu-like illness” is used to describe a possible case of influenza in the absence of lab testing. (Not a lot of labs and readily available testing kits for polio in Bangladesh, troll.)

“I wonder if Jake Crosby is learning more about epidemiology from B&O than from GW? Or if he’s going to use the B&O approach to epidemiology when he presents his first assignments?”

Boy Wonder Ace Reporter Jake has the lead article on today’s AoA website. He describes his testimony directed at BMJ Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee. Notice how he goes into a long harangue about the Wakefield case, Brian Deer’s reporting and assorted other “enemies” on the AoA “hit list”.

Actually, in spite of the moderator requesting that Jake stay on topic (is there a question in there?)…he continues to drift off and employs the “six (or is it sixty) degrees of separation” COIs technique that he learned from his handlers at AoA.

Jake’s pathetic abilities as an epidemiologist wannabe are documented verbatim during the private discussion he had with Ms. Godlee after the public meeting…where he questions her about not printing all of John Stone’s letters in the BMJ.

So, IMO Jake is learning more about epidemiology from B&O than he is learning at GW.

BTW, “AFP” is acute flaccid paralysis. It is no more a “renaming” of polio – as the troll would like to believe – as “flu-like illness” is used to describe a possible case of influenza in the absence of lab testing. (Not a lot of labs and readily available testing kits for polio in Bangladesh, troll.)

Actually, labs were not required to diagnose poliomyelitis before 1955, dunce.

If AFP is akin to “flu-like illness”, where is your surveillance record of “flu-like illness” alongside influenza cases?

The Cutter Incident had proved the Salk vaccine was indeed “safe, effective and potent”. What are you complaining Gray?

The Cutter Incident showed that there needed to be stricter regulation and QR done in vaccine manufacturing. Those have been implemented. The inadvertent lack of proper inactivation of the vaccine strains used also highlights just how effective the properly QAd vaccine works. Vaccine makers are humans and just like humans (especially yourself) are prone to making mistakes. That’s why those regulations were needed.

I also hope that if T1/2 wishes to use the Cutter Incident to demand the cessation of all vaccines, that she will likewise demand the cessation of all “natural”/alternative products, since there have been instances of contamination with aristolochia as well as incidents of heavy metal poisoning. After all, we wouldn’t want thingie to be a hypocrite.

If the plethora of AFP. Just wait for this. I’m with maternal antibody are you should have bet your premise, you were no maternal antibodies are so is akin to the original virus in Immunology. Regression, late onset red flag waved. Sorry.

@ Reuben: You raise an interesting point about flu-like illnesses…I might add FUOs (fever of unknown origin), as well.

Of course, everyone who actually works in public health or epidemiology is aware that influenza activity is monitored year round by the WHO and the CDC. From the CDC-Seasonal Flu website:

How does CDC monitor the progress of the flu season?

CDC collects data year-round and reports on influenza (flu) activity in the United States each week from October through May. The U.S. influenza surveillance system consists of five separate categories.

* Laboratory-based viral surveillance, which tracks the number and percentage of influenza-positive tests from laboratories across the country, and monitors for human infections with influenza A viruses that are different from currently circulating human influenza H1 and H3 viruses;
* Outpatient physician surveillance for influenza-like illness (ILI), which tracks the percentage of doctor visits for flu-like symptoms;
* Mortality surveillance as reported through the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System, which tracks the percentage of deaths reported to be caused by pneumonia and influenza in 122 cities in the United States; and influenza-associated pediatric mortality as reported through the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System, which tracks the number of deaths in children with laboratory confirmed influenza infection;
* Hospitalization surveillance, which tracks laboratory confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in children and adults through the Influenza Hospitalization Network (FluSurv-NET) and Aggregate Hospitalization and Death Reporting Activity (AHDRA); and
* State and territorial epidemiologist reports of influenza activity, which indicates the number of states affected by flu and the degree to which they are affected.

Let me add, that local health departments monitor flu-like illnesses that arrive in local hospitals’ Emergency Departments each Monday morning via telephone with the Infection Control nurse at each hospital and transmit tht information directly to the State’s Health Departments.

Actual confirmed cases of influenza that signal the onset of flu in a county are phoned in immediately from the hospitals’ virology labs. Local health department’s epidemiologists then notify the State immediately, which in turn notify the CDC immediately.

Each weekly MMWR issue will have reports of the first confirmed cases of influenza in each State.

I also hope that if T1/2 wishes to use the Cutter Incident to demand the cessation of all vaccines,

Oh so you think the Cutter Incident was the first? Try the disastrous Brodie/Kollmer polio vaccines in 1935 wherein many were left paralyzed. Thank you. Because of such embarrassing ignorance, further polio vaccine experimentation were abandoned until 1955.

Does anyone have a source for a first-hand account by a health-worker of not being allowed to distribute a polio vaccination? I cannot imigine how frustrating that must be. Personally, I would be in tears, but that might also be why I don’t work directly in healthcare.

Related to a comment on the last polio thread, I thought that another part of the polio-eradication challange was that it does have zoonotic hosts (great apes?) Didn’t Jane Goodall write about a polio outbreak among the chimps she was studing?

@ JustaTech: I suggest you “google”: “Global Polio Eradication Initiative” to find instances of war and political unrest that prevent health care workers from vaccinating children against polio in countries where the disease is endemic.

The reason why the eradication of smallpox was possible and we are closing in on eradicating measles and smallpox is that these three diseases have no other zoonotic hosts.

You only proved a specific case of a polio vaccine being almost as dangerous as the wild virus. I asked for evidence that the polio vaccine in general, that is, all instances of it, were as dangerous as the disease.

I am not telepathic but I do understand what constitutes trollish delusions…and possible motivations for its behavior.

It is a cherry-picking pathological liar with an imaginary education in science, imaginary career in the health care field and an imaginary job in health care.

My reasons for commenting on Thingy’s motivations and intentions are simple…I actually did clinical rotations in asylums where delusional people resided, studied psychiatric conditions in college and have a real, not imaginary BSc-Nursing, real licensing in my profession and a real career as a Public-Health Nurse-specializing in epidemiology. I have a particular dislike of posters who are clueless, who are delusional, who lie and spread junk pseudoscience and junk “theories”.

I’ve shared my feelings about Thingy’s motivation and Thingy’s postings…why don’t you tell us why you continually respond to Thingy?

And, I might add, I also provide the complete unedited-by-Thingy citation from whence it cherry-picks its bogus statements…unlike other posters here who continually re-phrase a question…to allow Thingy to go off topic with its games of semantics.

Gray Falcon, I understand your frustration with Th1’s ramblings, but no one who can think even a little bit will ever believe this person.

Like Lilady, I’ve seen unstable people up close. Whether or not Th1 is unstable, his (her?) online behavior is definitely not the behavior of someone who’s interested in (or capable of) an honest discussion. The behavior is more like what I associate with a mental patient who goes ballistic at the mention of certain topics. When you respond to Th1, you add just fuel to the fire. You’ll never get a delusional person to acknowledge delusions, because they’re real to that person.

The only other explanation is that s/he’s an aggressive troll who’s deliberately posting to get the best of you. Why would you want a troll to get the best of you?

Well we have all nailed Thingy for her delusions; during last night’s discussion of its grandiose and other delusions by Narad, Sauceress, Reuben, Denice Walter, Chris and me.

It will never acknowledge its delusions but I don’t feed the troll and allow it to slither away. I keep plugging away to spotlight its delusions and its lies and to provide citations and analysis, based on my experiences in public health. It is in my genes, I suppose, to expose this odious troll.

@ Gray Falcon: Don’t you dare leave here…you are one of the “regulars” here and we all enjoy your postings.

Sometimes the “regulars” (me included) fall into the traps set up by the resident trolls…it is just our human nature. Can anyone forget “my” stalking troll (whose name shall not be uttered), who continually baited me and I (blushing at that now), sometimes fell into its clutches?

Seriously, who else but a looper or a troll could write something as odious as “Sauceress, (who wants all pregnant mothers to get infected)” ?

I suspect that you may be operating under the assumption that what you mean by ‘infected’ is what it means by ‘infected’. That’s a nonstarter. The vocabulary ranges left to probe for the existence of the elusive particle that mediates the Th1Th2 semantic force seem to be “pathogens” and “toxins,” as far as I can tell.

Which is why I sometimes try to warn people by pointing out her comment that toddlers know the safe path. I try to not every direct any comment to her, since in another thread she revealed herself to be a manipulative delusional liar.

It’s easy to see you’re in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can’t turn back time. It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You’re just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there’s no second chance. Poor kiddo.

I looked into the Kano, Nigeria scare some time ago. It seems to be widely agreed was that the war in Iraq just getting under way at the time was a major cause of suspicion. I also recall seeing it mentioned prominently a number of times that most of the vaccines were made in France, which of course opposed the war.

I have several opinions of my own about the origin of the panic. First, I think it can strongly be connected to “shrinking penis” panics associated with witchcraft. Second, I think it’s not improbable that resistance to birth control is a factor. On that vein, it is of great interest that the rumors conflate the temporary effects of actual birth control drugs with permanent sterility. Finally, I strongly suspect the HIV claim probably had some justification, in that it’s all too likely that vaccination HAS contributed to the spread of HIV through “dirty needles” and other gross lapses in sanitation.

@ Gray Falcon: The vile commentary from Thingy is something I will never forget. Nor will I ever forget the vile commentary (“vaccine/medically damaged child”) from “my” stalking troll directed at me, Chris and other parents of disabled kids.

I have just one question directed at the “regulars” here. (I used to refer to Thingy as he/she/it and now just refer to Thingy as “it”)…does anyone know “its” gender?

I wonder why Thinger won’t answer where she has learned all these wonderful bits of knowledge? Well, it’s because she’s been googling. When someone points out that the “Cutter Incident” is just that, AN incident, she quickly went out and googled for other “incidents”. She then found something that happened in the 1930’s, for crap’s sakes. It’s like claiming that the airplane industry has only been getting worse by citing instances of plane failures leading to crashes in reverse chronological order.

She must think she’s a tachyon or something.

She’s not. She’s a delusional person who’s latched on to Orac’s blog and just tries over and over again to derail the comments section. Because we don’t stand for bullshit, she actually does derail the comments. Notice how we haven’t touched on B&O’s stupidity for a while now. It’s all been about the troll’s behavior and our own behavior in countering its claims.

If you all do not address Th1Th2’s comments for 24 hours, not replying to her stupidity, not countering any of her idiotic claims, nothing. From 5pm Eastern to 5pm Eastern tomorrow, I will donate $50 to a polio eradication program of you collective choosing. Orac (and some of you) knows me personally, so he (and you) knows I’m good for it if you all manage to ignore the troll.

The Thing said
‘If the plethora of AFP. Just wait for this. I’m with maternal antibody are you should have bet your premise, you were no maternal antibodies are so is akin to the original virus in Immunology. Regression, late onset red flag waved. Sorry.’

WTF is that supposed to mean?? Sounds like a phrase put through a translator a few times. Thing gets more bizarre by the day.

Warning: Left-wing politics ahead. It’s pure speculation, but one always has to wonder whether the scars of European imperialism have anything to do with the distrust of “European” medicine in some countries. I have an aunt whose traveled to Uganda to assist in charity efforts, maybe she knows something. On the other hand, asking might be a bad idea.

Why left-wing politics? That’s a very valid point and one that has been proven somewhat true in all the proclamations of the tyrants that rose to take power once the Europeans gave up the colonies. They – the tyrants – outlawed and shunned just about everything “western”. And a lot of that is still very much there.

“Finally, I strongly suspect the HIV claim probably had some justification, in that it’s all too likely that vaccination HAS contributed to the spread of HIV through “dirty needles” and other gross lapses in sanitation.”

You are mistaken. Vaccination is accomplished by using sterile techniques with sterile needles, by trained doctors, nurses and health care workers.

More likely, it is the “folk practice” of going to “practitioners” and demanding “a shot of something” as cures for common viruses and “accomodating practitioners” who re-use needles and syringes or attempt to sterilize one-use needle/syringes.

The many countries where “folk-way medicine” is practiced have just begun to provide education directed at these “folk-ways” practices in an effort to stop prescribing of antibiotics that lead to multi-drug resistant bacteria and, in order to stop the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne pathogens due to re-use of needles and deviation from sterile techniques of injecting drugs.

Gray Falcon, I think you can rest assured that no one, and I repeat this NO ONE, will believe anything that Th1.. says. What I find interesting, from a diagnostic point of view, is her apparent inability to understand English grammar – above and beyond her attempts to deliberately misunderstand postings, there is a significant problem in understanding. I suspect we are looking at someone along the autism spectrum, though I haven’t placed it precisely. It has been a fascinating exercise in watching her malice, I admit. This is a clinically sick individual with a great deal of genuine hatred badly expressed.

Upon further reflection and the acquisition of some genetic materials from the Blaxill with the assistance of some skilled minions and a shadow drone, the ladies on Level 7 have decided after a late cycle R&D meeting that we should take a page from the dreaded homeopath’s handbook in the targeting of our new product, Blaxillâ¢ (Myopivaxivirinol Sulfate).

Since we have analyzed the genetic structure of the Blaxillâ¢ himself, our Hahnemann-inspired findings indicate that if like cures like, we should attempt to use Blaxillâ¢ to cure confirmation bias. The levels of confirmation bias in the samples from the Blaxill were off the scale and yielded a nearly pure strain that we have cloned for mass production.

Thanks in part to your vigilance and deviousness my minions, we shall have Blaxillâ¢ on the market by the end of the year. Soon you’ll be able to ask your doctor if Blaxillâ¢ is right for you, and then reject it for sugar pills.

Yours in Pure, Lizardy, Pharma-eeeeeevill, etc., etc.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VC, iH7L
Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Suzerain of V’tar and Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Father of Myopivaxivirinol

@ Lord Draconis: I want to be the first to “sign” up as a drug representative for Blaxill(TM) and, I want to be the at the top of the MLM pyramid. All you other Big Pharma shills will have to kick-back some of your commissions to me.

We need to get some of the chemists who post here to do further research on “off-label” uses of Blaxill (TM)…perhaps as an homeopathic micro ingredient in supplements that boost the immune system or as a “chelation” agent for heavy metal poisoning…using the “Olmstead”(TM) protocol. Another off-label use, now that the Lupron castrating protocol has come into disrepute, would be to cure vaccine-induced autism.

I see a world of possibilities here for riches beyond imagination and for the respect of the (pseudo)scientific community.

In fairness, I did not come short of reminding everyone including you of course to not play around with Science. It’s like a candle light and you are all like tiny moths. You can swirl around the fire but you will not get any closer. In a very predictable way for those who dare to play with it, be prepared to get burned.

“I’ve been trying to force Th1Th2 into a position where she has to acknowledge her delusions. Sorry if it isn’t working.”

If I may, an apocryphal story from a friend who is a psychiatrist:

A young psychiatry registrar is called to the Emergency Dept. to evaluate a patient. When he arrives, he asks the man, “How are you this evening?”, to which the man replies “I’m dead.”

Well, this stymies the young registrar for a bit, but he notices that, where the nurse drew blood for lab tests, there is a small drop of blood forming, so he asks the man, “Sir, do dead people bleed?”.

The man gives this some thought and replies, “No, dead people don’t bleed – I’m sure of it.”

Triumphantly, the registrar points to the blood and says, “See there, you’re bleeding! What does that tell you?” Without missing a beat, the man replies, “Well, I guess dead people DO bleed.”

In short – you cannot force delusional people to ackowledge their delusions; they just make new delusions to cover any embarrassing gaps.

I’d recommend that you not try to “educate” Th1Th2 – she/he/it isn’t capable of assimilating information that conflicts with her/his/its delusional mind-set. I do, however, appreciate your efforts to correct Th1Th2’s misinformation, although I doubt too many rational people are confused by most of it.

If I might make a suggestion, correcting Th1Th2’s voluminous misinformation dumps without directly engaging her/him/it might provoke less of a response and – as a result – less misinformation to correct.

Remember the bet, ladies and gents. Don’t feed the troll and a polio eradication program of your choice gets $50. According to some programs, that enough for 200 doses. That’s 200 less children (at least) falling victims to polio.

I see some of you have replied to the troll, but the replies are far and few in between. Let’s keep it that way and bury the troll in her own loneliness, a quantum of stupidity if you will.

Given how much you abuse terminology, it’s clear you have no training or education in the field. Not to mention probably never even opened a textbook.

Having read her justifications for her bizarre re-definitions of “infected” and “asymptomatic infection”, I think she has read at least a few relevant textbooks, and is trolling for the sake of trolling.

Given how much you abuse terminology, it’s clear you have no training or education in the field. Not to mention probably never even opened a textbook.

I don’t think so. You’re speculating.

Your pulling of random, obscure papers to “disprove” something (ex. IV vaccinations) makes it very clear you just type stuff into Google.

Oh I am pretty sure you will be among the first to promote this intravenous malaria vaccine.

Sept.8,2011

New Malaria Vaccine Made from Mosquito Spit

Going forward, Durbin said, a clinical trial is needed in which the vaccine is injected intravenously.

An intravenous injection would be a first for a vaccine â most are injected into the muscle, with a few injected into subcutaneous fat or the skin â and might make mass immunization campaigns difficult, Durbin said.

Robert Seder, who led the NIH researchers in the animal experiments, said that even if an intravenous vaccine cannot be scaled up for mass immunization in countries where malaria is endemic, there would be a market among some Americans for it. They would include military recruits going to Africa; students or other visitors going there; public health workers and oil rig workers.

“They could get intravenous [vaccines] rather than having to take medicine for years and years,” said Seder, referring to the available malaria medicines, which must be taken daily or weekly as long as a person is in an infected region.[…]

@Matthew Cline: rem acu tetigisti. Precisely. Many of the trolls who infest Scienceblogs are of this breed. They live for malice, pure and simple. This is not disagreement based on misunderstanding, but deliberate confusion sown for the pleasure that being an ass brings. Panda’s Thumb has a very pernicious troll named Floyd Lee who admits he posts to contradict, not to learn.

This has nothing to do with vaccination. It’s all about self-pleasure.

I am very pleased with my recent promotion to Darkest Lady, Boadicca II: the adoration of servile young men is nearly as lovely as being compared to my ancestress, the Warrior Queen of East Anglia. Now never you mind those nasty little sniping rumours being circulated amongst the more unruly shills that like her I too will rebell against the foreign invaders subjugating our people with their cruel iron claw and mind-altering products leading our proud clan towards bloody victory quashing the alien presence once and for all time. No truth to that. They’re talking about the Romans infesting our fair planet with over-priced leather goods and fattening pasta. Not you: the Romans. We *like* you.

Excellent idea Reuben and I’m all in.
Believe it or not, I find it takes me no effort to ignore this particularly insidious troll, however on occasion I do enjoy using it to snine up my fur, sharpen my fangs and have a bit of a giggle.

A close family member, who is a nurse, has just hooked up with Doctors Without Borders so I’ll support going with them.

Having said that, I have been challenged, insulted and stalked by creationist trolls with same MO, so in terms of my overall blog commenting experiences, this one doesn’t particularly stand out.
Within that context, it’s more like “ho hum..here comes another one”

When responding to trolls, the only acceptable response is that from Thomas Jefferson:

âRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.â

Good question. It’s a fictitious disease label invented by WHO to redefine poliomyelitis.

Actually, it’s a medical symptom analysis. It’s one of the early symptoms of many things, one of them being poliomyelitis.

Of course, I have now ignored Jefferson’s maxim, and shall proceed instead to mock you.

Your ideas are stupid and wrong. Your ratio of explanation to fact long ago violated all the laws of causality as we normal, intelligent, rational, thinking beings know them. If you were any more stupid and wrong, your head would collapse into a black hole of retardation that no intelligent thought could escape from.

@90:
“You are mistaken. Vaccination is accomplished by using sterile techniques with sterile needles, by trained doctors, nurses and health care workers.”

In a WESTERN hospital, certainly. In Africa, all bets are off, and that is the context in which the “HIV-tainted vaccine” notion developed. Of course, HIV tranmission isn’t an issue with ORAL vaccines, but that might not be obvious to the Africans.

“More likely, it is the `folk practice’ of going to `practitioners’ and demanding `a shot of something’ as cures for common viruses and `accomodating practitioners’ who re-use needles and syringes or attempt to sterilize one-use needle/syringes.”

Needle reuse is THE problem, but it strikes me as perilously close to “scapegoating” to suppose that it mainly occurs outside of the developing world’s hospitals. In any event, the kind of thing you’re describing isn’t “folk practice” per se; it’s folk practitioners trying to adapt what MIGHT work with natural and familiar elements of the African environment to the tools of modern medical technology. The problem is, essentially, too much progress and not enough.

Of course, I have now ignored Jefferson’s maxim, and shall proceed instead to mock you.

I think that’s for the best. I’ve always found that maxim of Jefferson’s quite problematic. He was of course a quite brilliant thinker, but sometimes it seems he had a glaring naivete towards the idea that both sides in a conflict might think they were the ones with the right of it. Ridicule can be used against unintelligible propositions, it’s true, but it can be used by anyone against any proposition, so it doesn’t really increase the signal-to-noise proportions of a discussion.

Your ideas are stupid and wrong. Your ratio of explanation to fact long ago violated all the laws of causality as we normal, intelligent, rational, thinking beings know them. If you were any more stupid and wrong, your head would collapse into a black hole of retardation that no intelligent thought could escape from.

Like? I think this is the right you can make use of your “medical symptom analysis”, isn’t? Medical…symptom…analysis. I wonder where you butchered this from

I don’t know why you’re posting random studies regarding polio but are you denying the diagnosis of polio changed in the mid-fifties? And are are you denying the fact that polio was overdiagnosed in that era and that cases diagnosed then as polio would not today meet the diagnostic criteria?

I seem to “attract” certain trolls. I suspect there may be a little sexism there…as well.

I think it’s more because you often give them what they want by letting them push your buttons and engaging them on a personal level rather than keeping your responses to dismantling their idiotic statements.

AF:

He was of course a quite brilliant thinker, but sometimes it seems he had a glaring naivete towards the idea that both sides in a conflict might think they were the ones with the right of it.

I agree. One thing I remember from a dispute resolution workshop is to always act as if the other person is arguing in good faith, no matter how glaringly obvious it may be that is not the case. If the trolls’ points were addressed in this matter, no matter how tedious (and unsatisfying) this is, at the very least it also gives them thin gruel to feed on.

I don’t know why you’re posting random studies regarding polio but are you denying the diagnosis of polio changed in the mid-fifties?

“Sid,” unless you can convincingly quantify the effect of diagnostic refinement that resulted from availability of laboratory testing, which came about entirely as a result of efforts to develop a vaccine in the first place, all you have is a dumb Butler/Scheibner-esque conspiracy theory. And let’s be clear, it’s really, really dumb:

The problem with trotting out the canonical Greenberg quote is that he was basically advocating going for a more effective vaccine, which kind of tosses a sabot into the whole see-this-guy-says-it-was-defined-away operation.

@ David N. Brown: I stand corrected. Outside of the UNICEF and GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations), there are certain countries where reuse of needles/syringes, rather than AD (auto disable) syringes are a problem.

School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, NV, USA. [email protected]
Abstract

The sexualization of the HIV epidemic in South Africa has been used as evidence that unsafe medical injections are of minimal importance to transmission in Africa, because the country was thought to be free of unsafe injection risks. More recent observation reveals routine failures in infection control in South African maternity and paediatric wards and in public dental clinics. In one province at least one medical injection in five is administered with a used needle or syringe. Over 25% of new HIV infections identified in South African adults using the BED IgG capture enzyme immunoassay in 2005 were in individuals reporting they had not been sexually active in the past 12 months. Immunization injections received at public health facilities are associated with HIV infections in children, many of whom may have passed HIV to their mothers during breastfeeding. South Africa is one of few countries in sub-Saharan Africa not using auto-disable (non-reusable) syringes for all immunizations. Using resource scarcity as justification for needle reuse is ethically indefensible, as injection safety is a readily achievable goal.

Narad, how does his desire for a more effective vaccine relate to the diagnostic criteria being changed? It was either changed (and made more restrictive) or it wasn’t. It’s just like you’re side’s belief that the autism “epidemic” is simply a function of shifts in diagnostic criteria.

@ ildi: Nice take down there. I never engaged “my” two stalking trolls, in spite of personal invectives thrown at me by the Ugh Troll, which included vicious remarks about my deceased disabled son. The other stalker…”Jacob” resorted to the use of hundreds sock puppets which I may have inadvertently engaged. Both of them eventually got real nasty with sexual innuendo and Jacob threatened me…it was only when I told him I would commence legal action for his libelous accusation that I was a drug addict which threatened my professional license, that he backed down.

I will continue to address Robert Schecter as “Offal” until he stops using the name of a respected researcher and scientist.

BTW, I do dismantle their silly arguments with the actual facts…activities which I don’t ever recall you doing.

“Sid,” unless you can convincingly quantify the effect of diagnostic refinement that resulted from availability of laboratory testing,which came about entirely as a result of efforts to develop a vaccine in the first place,all you have is a dumb Butler/Scheibner-esque conspiracy theory. And let’s be clear, it’s really, really dumb:

Dumb Narad. Poliomyelitis, before 1955, was a clinical diagnosis, such as ALL cases of AFP today would be diagnosed as poliomyelitis at that time. Confirmation by lab test was not required until the Cutter Incident–as a result of your so-called “efforts” to develop a vaccine.

@ David N. Brown: I have a comment stuck in moderation; you are correct and I do thank you for pointing that out to me.

It seems that there is a deplorable lack of consistency (outside of the Unicef and GAVI-Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations programs) and in local clinics and hospitals there is re-use of needles/syringes instead of the AD (Auto Disable) needle-syringes.

BTW, I do dismantle their silly arguments with the actual facts…activities which I don’t ever recall you doing.

Oooh, snap!

No, I mostly lurk, as this is not my area of specialty, and luckily I don’t suffer from Dunning-Kruger or siwoti syndrome as a result. I’m merely giving you outsider feedback; do with it what you will. Engage away at whatever level you want, just don’t act surprised when you get your own personal trolls as a result.

You’re comparing apples to oranges, again. The polio case definition was changed to be more specific (lessening the chances of false negatives) because – and I know this is a shock to you – medical technology moved forward. The chances of a type I error (calling a true case a non-case) were lowered.

On the oranges side, the autism case definition changed to be more sensitive (lessening the chances of false positives) because other conditions were recognized to belong in the “spectrum”. The chances of a type II error (calling a non-case a true case) were lowered.

In other words, with polio we trimmed out the non-polio virus cased paralysis cases, which do occur. With autism we lumped in other conditions.

Hell, you’re all religious and stuff, so I’ll put to you a better way. If we were, say, fishermen, with polio, we decided to catch only one kind of fish, the fish with the virus. With autism, we decided to catch all sorts of different fish, the fish that used to be called “special”, “retarded”, “morons”, etc.

I can’t make it any clearer than that. And I can’t quote the Bible to you, either. Seriously, Sid, take a biostats course. It can only help your writing and commenting on these things.

You’re comparing apples to oranges, again. The polio case definition was changed to be more specific (lessening the chances of false negatives) because – and I know this is a shock to you – medical technology moved forward. The chances of a type I error (calling a true case a non-case) were lowered.

What kind of “medical technology” did they use to diagnose poliomyelitis before 1955?

Narad, how does his desire for a more effective vaccine relate to the diagnostic criteria being changed?

It makes it quite clear that Greenberg was not under any illusion that refined criteria somehow defined away the disease–precisely the illusion that dragging out this chestnut is intended to foster. I mean, seriously, this is the best you can do? It’s like arguing from “BrainyQuote.”

Too many people playing scientist/epidemiologist around here. It’s fine if you know your stuff or can defend it with – you know – evidence. But to just argue for argument’s sake is childish at best.

Sid cherry-picks data that he likes and ignores the rest, which is very dishonest. Very dishonest. How can he then come here and demand others to pay any kind of attention and respect to what he has to say?

It saddens me that the deal I proposed yesterday was not heeded. Too many decided to engage the thing-thang troll.

@168: Your comments are appreciated. I haven’t heard of “auto disable” needles, but I have read that some people are or recently have been still debating reuseable needles. My guess is that the main reason reuse is contemplated is the difficulties of supplying fresh needles,which are likely to include not just expense, but poor roads, infrequent deliveries and disruption by wars.

Another thing that’s food for thought is that the problem of dirty needles doesn’t end at the hospital. Even in a western setting, medical waste is a non-trivial hazard for anyone involved in handling garbage (see “Dumpster Diving” episode of Mythbusters).

Also, on the issue of medical waste disposal, I’m currently working on a story set in the Balkans where I worked in a gag about a hospital putting its garbage in one of Albania’s Cold War bunkers. Perhaps not so funny…

More research needs to be done on Blaxill(TM) medication, including research into optimum therapeutic range and development of accurate serum blood tests to avoid sub-therapeutic or toxic levels of Blaxill(TM).

Rueben, I don’t think you need to be discouraged so soon. Aside from one poster who apparently didn’t know about your challenge, and some generic discussion of trolls, no one has been paying any attention to Thingie.

You are spot on with that statement. I have another full article for you available on the NIH Public Access website. It deals with the implementation of a blood donor program in rural areas of China and the impact of “too much progress and not enough” and the risks associated with plasmapheresis, pooling blood and re-infusing the blood back to the donors.

Public Health Works: Blood Donation in Urban China

Again, sorry for not linking these articles…my deplorable lack of “linking” skills also get my postings stuck in “moderation”.

I’m not. I know that some people just can’t help to read such idiocy and not do something about it. However, the best thing we could ever do is give the troll the silent treatment and let her drown in her own stupidity. And then we can take what we know and apply it in the form of supporting the efficient delivery of life-saving vaccines, medicines, food, and other supplies to those who are not fortunate enough to log on to a computer and argue their case themselves.

Not being a regular reader, I’m not sure if you have ever used this ‘term of endearment’ for Messers Blaxill and Olmstead, but back in the 1970’s the Aerosmith songwriting team of Steven Tyler and Joe Perry were known as the Toxic Twins, I think it apropo, although B.O. is almost as descriptive…

Shut this and died
From so hideous and subsequent re-infection
And newborns born to why;
There won’t be any,
Or diseases can save the record–
Of your first approach like this phenomenon
You there are
You there are
You were exposed to your house

Shouldn’t we be wondering where B&O will going with this? I wonder if they will be “investigating” Big Chemical now or making allegations against the EPA…blaming them for the “autism epidemic”.

Meanwhile, the editors of AoA have this headline:

Offit’s CHOP gets $ 2.5 million to search for even more genes that have nothing to do with the autism epidemic

Notice the innuendo that Dr. Offit is somehow benefiting by a donation from a family with an autistic child for the genetic origins of autism. Its always a conspiracy, the vaccines and the evils of government and science in the group-think tank that is AoA.

Offit’s CHOP gets $ 2.5 million to search for even more genes that have nothing to do with the autism epidemic

I could be wrong, but isn’t one of the AoA memes that the autism “epidemic” is undetectable by epidemological studies because it only affects children with a rare susceptibility? If so, how do they justify declaring that genes “have nothing to do with” the purported autism epidemic, when the rare susceptibility they posit could well be genetic?

That’s what I thought. You don’t actually want to educate. That response shows you probably don’t even belive the nonsense you’re spouting. If you did, you’d provide evidence and that’d include your sources. You just want people to argue with you. There are better ways to get attention, go join a club.

If so, how do they justify declaring that genes “have nothing to do with” the purported autism epidemic, when the rare susceptibility they posit could well be genetic?

They don’t bother to justify it. Which is nothing compared to the way they simultaneously claim that it’s too rare to pick up, but also causes most/all cases of autism and is therefore common.

Remember, the way they think, vaccines are completely responsible and the whole story. Everything else is an attempt to deny how grossly inconsistent with the facts that is. They don’t care whether their claims are internally consistent, since they already know THE TRUTH and so it HAS to all hang together and make sense because if it didn’t it couldn’t be true.

Start from the premise that vaccines are the cause of all ills, and their behavior actually becomes quite comprehensible.

@ Antaeus Feldspar: Actually, they are upset that the parents of an autistic child has chosen to fund science and to not fund their pet theory…environmental causes. Just like they are furious with Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett who are funding the vaccination program in 3rd world countries. They are livid that other people have made choices about their money and not chosen their pet theories.

Today’s lead story at AoA is a continuation of that same theme:

The New York Times and the Downplaying of the Autism Disaster-Anne Dachel

She now dredges up all the anecdotal stories about some of their pet theories proponents who have tried and were unsuccessful to get “stories” developed and published that advance those theories.

One other thing…a favored theme is the publishing of “Letters to the Editor” that weren’t chosen to be published and the “bias” associated with those rejections.

That’s a very angry bunch of “editors and journalists” and readers over at AoA.

That’s what I thought. You don’t actually want to educate. That response shows you probably don’t even belive the nonsense you’re spouting. If you did, you’d provide evidence and that’d include your sources. You just want people to argue with you. There are better ways to get attention, go join a club.

My last source FYI (just fix the hyperlink) was at #127. Do you have anything to say against that in particular or you’re already educated? Huh? Because that was directed to Sauceress and it seems the person is in self-induced ignore mode.

So you’re saying you learned everything you’re spouting by googling random websites? It is telling that you say your last “source” is in 127, but that’s just a link to another thread. You’re making all these extraordinary claims and you haven’t one source in this entire thread?

And what I asked is “where did you learn what you’re saying” and you didn’t want “to give clues”. That’s not the attitude of someone who believes what they’re saying. That’s either a paranoid, a troll or both.

As far as I can tell, there are two Th1Th2’s on this thread. One simply mindlessly assembles sentences from a collection of words that it recognizes without regard to what it is replying to or the meanings of the words. The other is a Markov chain generator. I think that’s enough said.

You didn’t even bother to read what’s IN the link, did you? Just being lazy eh?

273
Sauceress,
I wonder why you guys are still not up-to-date.

IMMUNOGLOBULIN LEVELS IN INFANCY

Serum immunoglobulin levels in infancy vary based upon the maturity of the newborn, placental transfer of maternal immunoglobulin, time since birth, and ability of the infant to produce immunoglobulin.
Immunoglobulin GÂ âÂ At birth, most serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G is derived from the transfer of maternal IgG across the placenta during the third trimester of pregnancy. As a result, serum IgG levels at birth are commonly equal to or slightly higher than maternal serum IgG levels [2], and premature infants have lower IgG concentrations than full-term infants. Premature infants of 30 to 32 weeks gestation have cord IgG concentrations of approximately 400 mg/dL [3]. Small for gestational age (SGA) neonates may also have somewhat lower IgG levels than full-term neonates, reflecting possible impaired placental transport [4,5].

So tell me Sauceress are uninfected mothers excluded to this rule?
Yes or No?
Grow up and act like a mature adult. And don’t let Gray answer for you anymore.
Posted by: Th1Th2 | September 27, 2011 10:27 AM

Nope, I followed the link and read what it linked to. That you posted a single source is irrelevant. First I’d have to check the general accuracy of the site you linked to as I’ve never heard of it before. Second, that is a very minor part of my criticism. You refuse to state where you learned most of what you’re stating, claiming you don’t want to give clues. That’s not how science works. Your attitude and presentation are all anti-scientific. Why should anyone accept your word for these things, especially given the paucity of your links to sources? When you do post a link to a source, it is to a site that itself needs vetting. Obscurity hinders your claims, it does not help them.

The concentrations in cord blood of total immunoglobulin G (IgG) and the four subclasses of IgG were measured in 34 fetuses at a mean gestational age of 25 weeks (range, 18 to 35 weeks). The blood samples were obtained by percutaneous umbilical blood sampling, and results were compared with the respective IgG subclass concentrations of the mothers. The efficiency of transplacental transfer of the different IgG subclasses was determined. Transfer of IgG1 and IgG4 was found to be significantly more efficient than that of IgG3 and IgG2. IgG2 was the subclass least efficiently transferred from mother to fetus. These differences may partly explain the susceptibility of newborns to various pathogens, such as streptococcus group B.

Abstract
Total IgG concentrations and the concentrations of the four subclasses of IgG were estimated in thirty-four pairs of maternal and foetal sera from pregnancies of various gestations ranging from 28 to 42 weeks using the method of radial immunodiffusion. It was found that: (1) all subclasses of IgG cross the human placenta freely, (2) foetal levels of IgG and each subclass of IgG exceed maternal levels in full-term pregnancies and (3) there was a close linear relationship between gestational age and the placental transfer of IgG and each of its subclasses.

Maternal-fetal transport of immunoglobulin G and its subclasses during the third trimester of human pregnancy.
Conclusion
All four subclasses IgG1-4 were detectable in the umbilical circulation (28-42 WG). Whereas IgG3 and IgG4 in UA and UV had a similar concentration as in MV and remained unchanged, IgG2 increased with gestation from 0.67/0.74 g/l (UA/UV, 28-33 WG) to 1.29/1.58 g/l (UA/UV, 37-42 WG), but nevertheless remained lower than the level found in the MV (2.65 +/- 1.12 g/l). The main increase in IgG concentration, however, was due to the substantial rise in the transport of IgG1, which increased from 4.37 +/- 1.24 (UA) and 4.94 +/- 1.52 g/l (UV) at 28-33 WG to 8.94 +/- 1.66 (UA) and 10.89 +/- 1.96 g/l (UV) at the end of gestation, which was even higher than the overall IgG concentration in MV.

Just the start? Just the start of what? You’re going to post every link that you’ve “learned” something from? It makes me wonder who you think you’re arguing with. You’re answering questions I haven’t asked and avoiding the one I did ask. You can post links to your heart’s content, but it doesn’t answer the primary question of where you learned what you’re espousing here.

Wow – so insane troll is saying that we can be immune from diseases we’ve never had? Wow……
Posted by: Lawrence | September 24, 2011 7:15 PM

Wow indeed! Can’t wait for humpty’s explanation of how a newborn acquires antigen specific antibodies which haven’t been passed from mother to baby via the placenta.
Perhaps some weird version of the Vital Force(TM) puts them there.
Won’t be holding my breath for it to provide the details though. Posted by: Sauceress | September 24, 2011 10:57 PM

The above discussion is found here h ttp://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/09/mark_blaxill_and_dan_olmsted_polio.php#comment-5305423

No Thingy, I wasn’t asking for specific links, I was asking for where you gained your general knowledge, all the various things you’ve been spouting like your insistance that vaccines spread infections and all the rest. I don’t care about any specific link you may post, though your ususal lack of such postings is a symptom of your statement that you don’t want to give any hints about where you learned things.
You were posting a bunch of links at me, but not about anything I asked, I don’t have any specific question about any specific medical issue, I want to know where you gained your underlying knowledge and philosophy of medicine.

First off, you’ve accused me of posting an irrelevant source. Do you dispute this?

Nope, your source is completely irrelevant to my question of where you gained your general knowledge of medicine. You’ve shown that you occasionally post a source, I stipulate this, but that’s not the real question, it is a distraction from that question.

Secondly, you’ve accused me of not revealing where I learned these stuff. I gave you the links. Do you also dispute this?

Really? All your underlying medical knowledge and philosophy are gained from those few links? That’s very strange.

Here’s the original exchange, in case you’ve forgotten

lynxreign,

Th1Th2,
Just out of curiosity, where did you learn all the things you’re saying here?

I don’t wanna give clues, sorry.

See? No question about a specific medical issue, making your links irrelevant. And you responded that you don’t want to “give clues” about where you learned what you know. In other words, you want to keep it secret. Lets try again:
Out of curiosity, where did you learn all the things you say in the letters columns of this blog? Where did you obtain your general medical knowledge and philosophy of medicine. I don’t care if you’re a layperson that has taught him or herself, I just want to know what your starting point is.

Th1Th2 doesn’t seem to be aware why giving a partial answer to a question and deliberately shifting the subjects are bad things, then tosses out nonsense to justify her dishonesty. Not worth responding to.

Post 70. A very open ended, broad question. Even if you don’t want to consider it that way, I’m asking now. I believe you originally interpreted it as a question about your “general knowledge of medicine” because otherwise your response at post 96 makes no sense at all.
I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want me to know the answer to this question as it could have no result but my understanding you better.

You gave clues? What clues? That you google things? Is that your answer to where you gained your medical knowledge? Then just say so. I don’t see why you think it needs to be some kind of game. I just want to understand where you’re coming from. I didn’t move any goalposts, my question is the same as at the start: Where did you learn what you’re saying, in general. There’s no specific medical question here. Your answer about not wanting to give clues dumbfounded me and I jumped to a conclusion. Prove me wrong on that conclusion and just answer the question about where you gained your general medical knowledge and philosophy.

As I said, I jumped to a conclusion and I apologize for that, however I didn’t move any goalposts.
Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?
Go ahead and prove that earlier conclusion I jumped to wrong, let me know where you learned the basis for the many things you claim here so I can better understand you and what you’re saying.

You mean they have your picture and demographics in the medical record of a psychiatric facility, right? Because you’ve shown none, zero, zilch, nada of knowledge about medicine. Not an iota. The center of a donut. The space between atoms. What is left after a black hole is done with space and time.

You don’t know jack about medicine, Thing, is the main bullet point of my comment.

2) You are inoculated with a dead, or just the outer shell of a dead, pathogenic organism.

3) You are inoculated with bits and pieces of the outer shell of a pathogenic organism.

4) You are inoculated with synthetic proteins which resemble bits and pieces of the outer shell of a pathogenic organism sufficiently to educate your immune system against the said organism.

5) You are inoculated with a chemical product of a pathogenic organism in sufficient quantity to create an immune response against it.

6) You are inoculated with a synthetic chemical resembling a chemical produced by a pathogenic organism.

You have described all these events with the single word “infection”. Link to a recognized medical or scientific source which authorizes the use of the word “infection” to describe any one of the above events except the first, and we will accept your medical expertise.

You have described all these events with the single word “infection”. Link to a recognized medical or scientific source which authorizes the use of the word “infection” to describe any one of the above events except the first, and we will accept your medical expertise.

Alternatively, it could just publish in a respected journal, detailing (providing research based evidence of course) how all the microbiologists,immunologists, epidemiologists and allied health professionals the world over have misconstrued the term “infection”. All it has to do is publish a research paper showing unequivocally why its comprehension of the term is the One True(TM) meaning.

Oh well I’ve had my laughs for today. I know one shouldn’t laugh at the mentally challenged, but humpty’s brand of arrogance of ignorance makes it impossible not to.
Reading its posts also always reminds me to feel glad that none of those around me have been suckered into some insidious cult like the antivaxxers, creationists or alt health nutters ect.

Its deceit knows no limit. It obviously really believes that those readers it’s trying to convince are incredibly ignorant,
not to mention stupid.

I’ve been calling your attention many times already and I am waiting if you’re going to accept full responsibility for your damaging assertions and misinformation, injustice and discrimination you have posited against ALL uninfected pregnant women and newborns out there.

Last thing…
Subclinical Infection and Asymptomatic Infection are a sub-classifications of infection types. They wouldn’t be given as an alternative to a general definition of infection as the qualifier of those terms is that no symptoms are are evident.
That doesn’t fit a general definition of the term infection.
Seems to me humpty’s been up to a bit of deceitful editing.

I’ve been calling your attention many times already and I am waiting if you’re going to accept full responsibility for your damaging assertions and misinformation, injustice and discrimination you have posited against ALL uninfected pregnant women and newborns out there.

I think you’re just jealous that the bot is prettier, more creatively talented, and more popular than you are.

I don’t believe that even Lord Draconis has access to technology for the remote control of antivaxxers. I understand that for mind control to work at that range there must be considerably more mind present than antivaxxers possess.

Thingy, since I never specified whether the pathological organism in case #1 was causing symptoms or not, your quote is just a restatement of a subset of that. It’s irrelevant, though, because I said except #1. Now find some justification for the use of the word “infection” for oneâany one, of cases 2 through 6. The adulation of the multitude awaits you.

P. S.â I’ll even spot you case # 1.5: Your body becomes the host to a living, reproducing pathogenic organism, which is lying dormant and not reproducing at the moment but may begin to at some time in the future, although probably not.

That’s even a little inclusive than your asymptomatic subset, and I’ll agree that’s an “infection”. Question of course being, is it advantageous (like attenuated vaccine virii, for example) or disadvantageous (like chickenpox hiding out waiting to turn into shingles)?

No, no, no, no, NO! You did not! You quoted justification for the use of the word to describe a subset of case #1. You did not cover cases 2 through 6 in ANY way, shape or form. If you can’t see that, that’s all the proof that’s needed that you need to be institutionalized for your own protection. But I suspect you already are.

P. S.â I’ll even spot you case # 1.5: Your body becomes the host to a living, reproducing pathogenic organism, which is lying dormant and not reproducing at the moment but may begin to at some time in the future, although probably not.

It’s called latent infection which occurs after initial or primary infection.

That’s even a little inclusive than your asymptomatic subset, and I’ll agree that’s an “infection”. Question of course being, is it advantageous (like attenuated vaccine virii, for example) or disadvantageous (like chickenpox hiding out waiting to turn into shingles)?

Varicella vaccine does the same thing. It promotes latent infection followed by reactivation causing shingles. Shocking? Not.

Th1Th2, do you understand the different between “part of something” and “something”? Seriously? Answering half our question is like giving us half a puppy: Nothing like the whole, and you seriously wonder about the mental state of the giver.

The very first sentence in that chapter shows that Th1Th2 is lying about the definition:

Infectious diseases are caused by transmissible agents that replicate in the affected host.

The next full paragraph after the table Th1Th2 leaves no doubt that infection requires replication:

Many terms have been used to describe the stages of progression of the infectious process. This inconsistent vocabulary can lead to considerable confusion. For many infectious agents, the terms infection and disease have been used interchangeably. This equivalence may be appropriate when all infected hosts progress to disease in a brief time, but for many agents this is not the case. For most epidemiologic studies it is important to distinguish invasion and replication of the infectious agent without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage from replication of the infectious agent with signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage. We therefore use the term infection exclusively to refer to the state of tissue invasion without disease and use the term disease to refer to the state of clinical signs, symptoms, and abnormal laboratory findings, even though âinfectionâ is usually also present in the disease state.

The paragraph finishes with a description of latent infection, where the agent is in a non-replicating state but is still viable – that is, it retains the ability to resume replicating at a future date. Cases 2-6 are non-viable, so do not meet the definition in Thingy’s source.

Th1Th2, do you understand the different between “part of something” and “something”? Seriously? Answering half our question is like giving us half a puppy: Nothing like the whole, and you seriously wonder about the mental state of the giver.

Not every part of a pathogen is a virulence factor, and virulence factors can’t reproduce on their own. There’s a big difference between bread and a bakery. By the way, since bread has to be baked at temperatures that can kill a person, does that make bread lethal?

The very first sentence in that chapter shows that Th1Th2 is lying about the definition:

Infection does not require replication because infection precedes replication. The agent cannot replicate without establishing a primary site of infection. If the agent is replicating in the host, then it is termed as a disease. Check the table.

The next full paragraph after the table Th1Th2 leaves no doubt that infection requires replication:

Again, there MUST be an invasion (tissue invasion) to initiate an infectious process and it MUST occur prior to replication (if the infectious agent is replicating).

The paragraph finishes with a description of latent infection, where the agent is in a non-replicating state but is still viable – that is, it retains the ability to resume replicating at a future date. Cases 2-6 are non-viable, so do not meet the definition in Thingy’s source.

A latent infection or dormancy is a consequence of primary infection of the same pathogen. ALL vaccines cause primary infection but not all are capable of latent infection.

From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

@ Gray Falcon: We always come to that same conclusion with Thingy…so why even bother…its insane…its institutionalized…it is germ phobic…its sole pleasure in life is “engagement” on the internet and its overdone…stick a fork in it.

From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

Absolutely spot on, could bot of put it better. Judging by the things response it knows it lost.

OK, ThingyâI know that microorganisms, being invisible and all (except to “due diligence” of course)âtrigger that primitive, lizard part of your brain that goes “ZOMG!!!GERMZ!!!” and shuts down. So let’s take a more concrete example:

1) Is a living, breathing human being a person?

2) Is the corpse of a human being a person?

3) Is a bucketful of cut-off human hands and feet a person?

4) Is a bucketful of spray-on skinâthat resembles the real thing sufficiently that fresh skin will grow into it when it’s used on burnsâa person?

5) Is a bucketful of human urine a person?

6) Is a bucketful of water with synthetic urea dissolved in it a person?

To be consistent with your declared opinions, you will have to answer “yes” to all six. Here on Earth, we answer “yes” only to number one.

I see that Th was unable to find a text to establish its claims about the definition of infection. I didn’t expect it to, but that quote mine was particularly pathetic.

Haha. It’s well defined in the textbook. All you have to do is read, lump.

On the progression axis, a series of events must take place for an infectious disease to occur. This series is shown schematically in Figure 27-1A. First, the human host must be exposed to the infectious agent. Next, exposure must lead to infection with the agent, defined as invasion into host tissues. Finally, infection must lead to the development of the clinical signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings that we recognize as the disease.

That was a question. And it has since been answered by Mephistopheles in #346 from that link to quote “They are not considered “self”, as witnessed by the immune response.”. But the problem as expected is that he denied killed vaccines, although being not-self, is an infection.

Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)

Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)

Hence, I always ask for justification of their use of hypothetical situation and analogy before they demand me to draw a conclusion. They should be thankful instead that I always remind them to be cautious so they will avoid logical fallacies. As an example, try asking Gray if he is still confident in using the bread-bakery analogy as an effective tool used in vaccine argument.

“Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)”

A friend of mine – who is a psychiatrist – mentioned that one of the clinical tests used in the diagnosis of certain psychiatric conditions is to ask the patient to interpret or explain simple analogies. According to him (and psychiatric texts), people with certain thought disorders cannot understand analogies (and, by extension, hypotheticals and syllogisms) and often misunderstand them as concrete statements.

Thus, an analogy comparing an inactivated virus vaccine with a dead person would seem a non sequitur because the patient sees it as a comparison between things that have nothing in common.

You will note that the toddler and sidewalk comment is from a year ago. Combined with the incredibly nasty remark you posted should give any newbies an accurate representation of her evil delusional personality.

According to him (and psychiatric texts), people with certain thought disorders cannot understand analogies (and, by extension, hypotheticals and syllogisms) and often misunderstand them as concrete statements.

Thus, an analogy comparing an inactivated virus vaccine with a dead person would seem a non sequitur because the patient sees it as a comparison between things that have nothing in common.

This may or may not be applicable to the present comment thread.

Well, the Thing did say that she was “no stranger to Medicine” – Haldol, perhaps?

Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.

Shut this thread down now. It’s so hideous. I have been telling Orac that his losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.

Shut this thread down now. It’s so hideous. I have been telling Orac that he’s losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

“Well, the Thing did say that she was “no stranger to Medicine” – Haldol, perhaps?”

Actually, Thingy is “no stranger to the mental health system”.

I suspect Thingy cycles in and out of the mental health system as well as being a “frequent flyer” in psych emergency rooms, prior to being taken to court for involuntary commitment procedures. Oh yes, Thingy makes the “circuit” frequently.

Too bad, that psychiatric laws in the USA permits psych patients to refuse medication…so many of the them resort to “self-medication” with street drugs that they ingest, sniff or inject.

Perhaps we can look forward to Thingy OD’ing? It would be called “terminal disinfection” of the Thing.

“Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.”

@ Sauceress: Thingy is just an insane troll with an imaginary education and imaginary career and totally warped when it expresses concern for children. It inhabits its own world and is just a nasty evil disease-promoting troll…with a particular delusion against immunization.

The people who actually ascribe to the ever-changing B&O and AoA junk science theoris are seemingly beyond help. Shame on them for continuing their campaign to scare expectant parents and parents of older children away from protective vaccines.

I can see some value in engaging thing. Thing is an example to all the readers of the mindset of the antivax crowd and reveals the twisted logic that leads to that mindset to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I think we’re all agreed that Thingy is “crazy”, in the colloquial meaning of the word, but this absolute inability to process analogies, and the conviction that all subsets are improper subsets, surely must be indicative of some recognized disorderâany mental health professionals want to undertake a diagnosis?

On the other hand, if it’s a new ailment, never before cataloged, maybe Thingy can achieve the immortality she so craves by having it named after her? Thingy’s dim-with-lemmas dilemma?

Thing is an example to all the readers of the mindset of the antivax crowd

I don’t think so. It is on its own trip. Consider the following:

I have been telling Orac that his losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

This is presented in the face of Th1Th2’s being completely unwilling to respond to queries regarding whether it can demonstrate or even allude to somebody that might agree with it on the semantic tenets. Remember, it failed badly in presenting itself to the MDC antivax crowd (although it did pick up the “pox party” vocabulary element).

Thingy has mental problems big time…and it has latched on to this blog…for some reason.

It really is delusional and has never been able to answer any questions put to it. Dr. Harriet Hall describes an encounter with Thingy and trying to get it to provide cogent answers as trying to nail jello to the wall.

I think we’re all agreed that Thingy is “crazy”, in the colloquial meaning of the word, but this absolute inability to process analogies, and the conviction that all subsets are improper subsets, surely must be indicative of some recognized disorderâany mental health professionals want to undertake a diagnosis?

The inability to process analogies is typical of concrete thinking, which is seen in early childhood, and as a consequence of brain injury, dementia and schizophrenia.

The deliberate refusal to process analogies is typical of being an asshole troll, in my non-professional opinion.

IANAS either, but I too have wondered similar things. Thingy seems to be able to recognize when some form of non-concrete thinking is being employed, but unable to understand what the various forms are and how they function. She’s referred to “metaphors and syllogisms” as if they were even close to being the same thing; she’s used “hypothetical situation” and “hypothesis” as interchangeable terms; she’s declared that a hypothetical situation is “wrong” if it doesn’t assume a premise that she believes to be true… she’s shown some ability to avoid previous mistakes once they’re pointed out to her, but she still shows no sign of actually grasping how non-concrete thinking functions and what benefits it provides.

You’re correct- inability to process metaphor can be diagnostic of problems with higher mental processes, like in SMI, esp. thought disorder; also there may be anosognosia. Most likely. Also EFL/ESL as Narad says.

Much less likely, it could be a writer who studied psychopathology and testing f–king with our heads. I could probably do this but *who would spend so much time* unless…..

Oh yes, I’d almost forgotten, Thingy shows an almost complete inability to correctly identify logical fallacies, claiming that an argument which is not attributed to anyone suffers from the fallacy of false attribution, and that an argument is “a clear-cut definition [sic] of fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam” simply because she thinks it contains an ignorant mistake. (Also, thinks that in order for Person A to claim “Person B thinks Claim C is true,” Person A must not only prove that Person B thinks that Claim C is true, but that Claim C actually is true.)

I think that we largely agree that Th1Th2 is at least simulating mental illness. My college chum (who is a “shrink”) tells me that it can be very difficult – even in person – to discriminate between someone with a thought disorder and someone who is trying to “fake” a thought disorder, since even the severely psychotic (old term) can have lucid intervals.

At any rate, whether Th1Th2 is actually suffering from a mental illness or is simply simulating one for entertainment purposes, it seems rather pointless to engage in debate with her/him. I’m not saying that we should let Th1Th2’s outrageous statements stand without response, just that pointing out that he/she is inconsistent, illogical and irrational seems unproductive.

If she/he is suffering from a mental illness, those behaviors are part of the disorder and won’t be “fixed” by pointing them out. If he/she is playing at being “crazy”, then getting us to respond to his/her irrational behavior is part of the fun.

Thank you, all who ignored the troll and didn’t give her a soapbox on which to spill her delusional brand of stupidity. Because of you, children will be spared this disease, and we’ll be a few inches closer to eradicating polio.

*Yes, I’ve photoshopped my name and the confirmation numbers from the receipt, for obvious reasons. Those of you that know me personally can vouch for me, I’m sure.

Wow! That’s some million-candlepower projection there, since post hoc ergo propter hoc is all the anti-vaxxers have. Presumably Thingy saw somebody use this phrase once and thought it sounded all intellekcherull and shit…cargo-cult logic-chopping at its finest.

One seriously has to wonder mental processes went into her statements. “They just accused me of using words to sound impressive without knowing what they mean! How do I respond? I know, I’ll use words to sound impressive without knowing what they mean!”

Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?

I’m sorry but that’s something I tend not to share.

Why in the world wouldn’t you share that? Either you think it is embarassing or you’re just making things up. Otherwise that’d be the first thing you should be willing to share. If people can see where you learned what you know, they can use the same sources and you’ve gained a step in making yourself understood.

Go ahead and prove that earlier conclusion I jumped to wrong, let me know where you learned the basis for the many things you claim here so I can better understand you and what you’re saying.

Let’s just say I am no stranger to Medicine. Fair enough?

No. That’s not “Fair enough”. Your statements on this blog show that you are a stranger to medicine. Showing your educational background, whatever it might be, would go a long way to helping people understand where you’re coming from. As it is, you look like an uninformed nut. You demand people take your word for things without providing any reason for them to do so.

The sad thing is, I really did want to try to understand where Thingy was coming from. I knew his or her statments were utter nonsense, but I really wanted to know how and why he (or she) was making them. I was looking for some point of conversation, some way to understand her (him?) better.

Instead, it is secrets and hidden knowledge and what looks like paranoia. If you’re not willing to explain yourself when you get into conversations about science, what other answer is there than you’re just trying to be a jerk?

You demand people take your word for things without providing any reason for them to do so.

Like?

Like asking for proof that anyone, anywhere, has ever authorized the use of the word “infection” to describe scenarios 2-6 in #254 above. You were offered a chance to prove that you weren’t using a language all your own and you refused.

One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.

I agree with Blaxill and Olmsted about their historical discussion of mercury in The Age of Autism. Their discussion of the various mercury compounds and their contribution to permanent vaccine injury is convincing to me. To those of you who claim that mercury has been eliminated from most vaccines, BO say it has been more than replaced in flu vaccines and in other ways. Thimerosal given to pregnant women, for example, can give the fetus even more of it than the vaccine schedule– and at an even more vulnerable time!– they say.

However I have a bone to pick with BO (I’m also a railfan so won’t use B&O) about overusing their mercury arguments to discredit psychoanalysis and other functional psychotherapy. I agree with you that there is a real issue with untrained people writing on medical topics, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong about mercury in vaccinations!

One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Each and every pediatric vaccine is available in a thimerosal form. There are at least four influenza vaccines without thimerosal. The blue letters are a link to a table of pediatric vaccines. The word “Free” under the “Thimerosal Status” column means that there is no thimerosal.

One of the problems with causation is that polio isauto accidents are defined by a certain virusvehicle. If polio isauto accidents are by definition this virusvehicle, the virusvehicle cannot be a cause of polioauto accidents.

“One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.
“

“Polio” – or, more properly “poliomyelitis” – is a disease that is caused by the poliovirus. Since the disease “polio” is not defined as the virus (although it is often defined as “the disease caused by poliovirus”), your concern is misplaced.

Minerva38 continues:

“To those of you who claim that mercury has been eliminated from most vaccines, BO say it has been more than replaced in flu vaccines and in other ways.”

Of course, B&O say this, but the numbers don’t work. The environmental exposure to mercury in the US (and in most of the world) has been decreasing since the 1980’s (as demonstrated by mercury deposition studies) and the amount in the influenza vaccine – even if children get a thimerosal-containing “flu shot” (not all have thimerosal) every year – is still much less mercury than children got prior to 2001.

The charitable interpretation of B&O’s insistence that mercury intake hasn’t decreased since 2001 is that they are unable to do simple math.

Are these people “convincing” to you? If so, you need to raise your standards.

Like asking for proof that anyone, anywhere, has ever authorized the use of the word “infection” to describe scenarios 2-6 in #254 above. You were offered a chance to prove that you weren’t using a language all your own and you refused.

As I said, be careful what you wished for. You want some more evidence, infection promoter? Certainly.

Communicable disease epidemiology and control: a global perspective p.34
Artificial infection is given by vaccination, or rather the objective is to administer the antigenic substances produced by the disease organisms without the host developing the disease. Vaccine can be given, but immunity does not always result due to poor administration, the vaccine no longer being potent, or the host not developing an immune response. Therefore, the term vaccination is mostly used in this book to indicate the administration of vaccine rather than immunization, which can be misunderstood as immunity has been given.

Congratulations, ThingyâYou’ve advanced to case 1.5, which I already spotted you. If you think this authorizes the use of the word “infection” for cases 2-6, you’re a moron.

And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purityâ¢ of your Precious Bodily Fluidsâ¢ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

Funny how, immediately following the paragraph Thingy quoted, there is a listing of the various types of vaccines. Only live attenuated vaccines (case 1) are listed as actual infections. An “artificial infection” is not necessarily an actual infection (it can be, but it doesn’t have to be). Once again, Thingy comes up short.

Funny how, immediately following the paragraph Thingy quoted, there is a listing of the various types of vaccines. Only live attenuated vaccines (case 1) are listed as actual infections. An “artificial infection” is not necessarily an actual infection (it can be, but it doesn’t have to be). Once again, Thingy comes up short.

Advantages of inactivated whole organisms
â¢By administering whole organism as a vaccine, it is easily
phagocytosed and its antigens are presented to the Th cells.
The full range of exogenous antigens is presented, ensuring
that a broad immune response is generated..â¢Since the organism is dead, there is no chance of disease
occurring in the host.
â¢The vaccine is relatively heat stable, which is advantageous is
places where refrigeration is not available.

And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purityâ¢ of your Precious Bodily Fluidsâ¢ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purityâ¢ of your Precious Bodily Fluidsâ¢ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

For those who just arrived, #300 also contains a lie by omission, as Th1Th2 fails to provide the author’s definition of “infectious agent.” Now, read #305 to see why Th1Th2 is too vile to hold a discussion with.

OK I have been convinced, there is no value whatsoever in engaging thing in any sort of debate. Thing has demonstrated that it is too stupid and too mentally deranged to make any salient point in an argument. I would like to put in a personal plea to Orac to kill the Thing once and for all. This mind boggling stupid individual is simply a total waste of time.

@ dedicated lurker, I don’t mean to speak for our host but I have become familiar with his stance on nuking certain tormentors commentors. I will just say this, I appreciate and respect his stand on censorship (none to minimal) barring sock puppets or some that are so heinous that it is clear they post with the most egregious intent. I don’t think Th1Th2 falls under either of these categories (oddly) so it is completely up to us to ignore her.

I have happily adopted this stance. And please consider this as well, as much as we may feel we have to counter her bollocks, no one who you would think may potentially listen to her will. We are the only fools giving her a stage for her speshul brand of performance art, therefore, it is completely within our own power to let her discursive obtuseness pass us by. I respectfully disagree that our host needs to protect us from her.